World Naturopathic Federation (WNF) ble opprettet i 2014 for å representere naturopatiske/naturmedisinske terapeutorganisasjoner på verdensbasis. WNFs rolle er å fremme, støtte og videreutvikle det globale naturopatiske/naturmedisinske yrket, fremme høye, globale utdanningsstandarder og oppmuntre til og støtte forskning på naturopati/naturmedisin.
Som fullverdig medlem av World Naturopathic Federation har NNH presentert seg i det internasjonale forumet «Greetings from…» med videopresentasjon fra internasjonale organisasjoner annenhver måned.
NNHs innlegg av styreleder John Petter Lindeland inkluderer blant annet
- Enhet skapte en sterkere naturmedisinsk stemme og la grunnlaget for faglig utvikling
- Tydelige utdanningsstandarder hevet kvaliteten og skapte tryggere forhold for studentene
- En felles naturmedisinsk identitet har vært avgjørende for faglig anerkjennelse og fremtidig regulering
- Tidsskriftet Naturterapeuten har vært viktig for å informere publikum og fagfolk om hva som skjer innen naturmedisin i Norge
- Forskning vil fortsatt være avgjørende for å demonstrere naturmedisinens verdi og støtte fremtidig faglig anerkjennelse
Opptak fra NNHs og andre organisasjoners innlegg i «Greetings from…» kan ses her
Her er styreleder John Petter Lindelands innlegg:
First of all, thanks for letting NNH (Norske Naturterapeuters Hovedorganisasjon) present our history and professional policy development during the last decades, the current status and strategies and future considerations.
First, a bit about our history.
Norske Naturterapeuters Hovedorganisasjon (NNH) was established as an independent organization on 12th November 1994, as a result of a reorganization of the Central Council of Norwegian Natural Therapists. Prior to this date there had been great unrest in the profession, due to the proposal of the new Bill of Health Personnel. This bill proposed a prohibition for practising alternative medicine, and many realized the consequences and the need for gathering forces. Also from the perspective of the state administration there were a request of gathering forces and defining objectives, since the Ministry and the Parliament wished to address fewer actors in the field.
A silver collection was started, which enabled the engagement of professional counsellors who, among other things, formulated an Actionplan/Strategy of Communication.
Late autumn 1994 NNH was established by a merger of different organizations: Collegium Medicum Norge, Norsk Biopatforbund, Norsk Heilpraktikerforening, Norsk Zoneterapeut Forening and the Norwegian branch of the Scandinavian Acupuncture Foundation. These associations had the same foundation concerning their aims, objectives and obligations. Later several other groups have merged into NNH, namely Norsk Aromaterapeut Forening, Aromaterapiens Hovedorganisasjon i Norge, Norsk Refleksologisk Forbund, Interesseforeningen for Polaritetsterapi, Helhetsterapiforbundet og Naturopatforbundet.
When the organization had been established with an office in Oslo and a secretariat function, the work gradually began to consider what could bring together all these different professional identities into one organization with a common voice. Most of the organizations – and consequently their members – brought with them a strong identity linked to the particular therapeutic field in which they had been trained, as well as to the educational institution they had attended. The big question became: Who are we? This is similar to what national states had to do in a historical context.
Another challenge was also that none of the existing educational institutions used the professional title Naturterapeut, which corresponds to our organization’s name – Norske Naturterapeuter. And at the same time, we also had to compete for both attention and members with other strong organizations that focused exclusively on one single therapeutic discipline, particularly acupuncture and homeopathy. I will come back to this later and what consequences this had during and after the introduction of a new law on alternative medicine in Norway.
Therefore, in 2000, a working group was established to draft educational guidelines that would apply to everyone wishing to become a member of the organization in the future, as well as to educational institutions seeking approval of their study programs. This educational guideline was finished in 2004 and adopted at the general assembly the same year.
The process ahead – because of the new requirements – resulted in reducing the number of educational institutions from about 70 to 10 in a few years, which also resulted in better standards generally – and better and more secure conditions for the students. The guidelines also – as an answer to the question who are we – established that all members should have the same education in three compulsory subjects – fundamental naturopathic knowledge, introduction to nutrition and herbal medicine, basic medical knowledge and Ethics and business practices – and research.
These new educational guidelines have, in a way, been a success. We have a good reputation in the Norwegian society and have established a position within our field that many people listen to. But; it did not bring us any closer – or close enough – to answering the question of who we are. This will certainly have consequences for our strategies regarding regulation. A prerequisite for taking a firm position on such issues is knowing who we are!
So, in 2021, NNH discovered the World Naturopathic Federation – and became a full member the same year. The rest, I believe, is a love story. Finally, we had found a partner who could provide us with international support on the fundamental questions we had been asking ourselves for many years. At the same time, while naturopathy is a medical system, it also has the capacity to encompass many therapeutic disciplines, provided that both practice and theory are consistent with the principles, philosophy, and theories of naturopathy. Therefore, several years ago, we began the process of revising the educational guidelines. We have now incorporated the Naturopathic Educational Program into the new version. Our hope is that most/or all educational institutions will offer naturopathic education in the future, and that future members will be able to identify with this shared professional identity. Some groups in NNH are already qualified for this professional title – in our opinion. We are also in progress concerning change of the name of the organization. All this will be linked to our strategy when it comes to future regulation and our interaction with health authorities and politicians. I will come back to this.
Although Norway and the Nordic countries do not have a tradition of using the term naturopathy, many practitioners have had strong ties to Germany and the Heilpraktiker- system. Within NNH, we had a school – Naturheilschule – that recruited many members for several years. Students who graduated from this school had the opportunity to take the German Heilpraktiker examination. The educational content – which I believe Tina can confirm – is largely identical to what we would consider the content of a naturopathic professional identity.
Another school – the Norwegian Academy of Natural Medicine – which also recruited members to NNH, was strongly influenced by German education within our medical tradition. For three decades, this educational institution was one of the largest in Norway, and the content of its program was largely identical to what is found in the Naturopathic Educational Program. As homeopathy was the main subject, most graduates became members of the Norwegian Association of Homeopaths – rather than NNH. Several members of the teaching staff, as well as people within the organization mentioned above, were strongly influenced by charismatic homeopaths from Europe, USA and India. The result – and this is my personal assessment – was that homeopathy was elevated to a position where it was seen as capable of solving most health problems. What the graduates eventually experienced, however, was that this was not the case.
I mention this only to demonstrate that a one-sided approach to health and illness are not optimal. As Iva Lloyd said to me in an interview I conducted a few years ago:
“As naturopathic practitioners we are fortunate to have a range of treatment modalities that we can offer patients. It is common for naturopathic treatments to include four or more modalities or treatments in each session – i.e., dietary advice, recommendation of lifestyle changes, counselling around stress management, recommendation of herbs or homeopathics, acupuncture and some form of bodywork. I love the diversity of naturopathic treatments, but it is the uniqueness of naturopathic assessment and diagnosis that defines naturopathic practice and the naturopathic profession.”
So far Iva.
I will now go back to the seventies, eighties and nineties, because this was a period where natural medicine, alternative/complementary medicine had a strong position in Norway – and may be all over the world. The flower-power generation had pointed to some weakness concerning the prevailing paradigm of infinite growth and prosperity. In Norway this led to great interests in ecology in general – ecological agriculture, natural medicine etc. Many schools in natural medicine were established, and during the eighties and nineties there was a lot of lobbying from both educational institutions and organizations toward health authorities and politicians – especially from those who organized just one therapeutic modality – acupuncturists, homeopaths, osteopaths.
So, in 1997, after a unanimous request by the Storting (Norwegian Parliament), the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs appointed a Committee to report on various aspects of Alternative Medicine. The Committee has been called the Alternative Medicine Committee or Aarbakke Committee in recognition of its chairman, Professor Jarle Aarbakke. The Committee was given the following mandate: Account for the status of alternative medicine and the place alternative medicine has in Norway today – and with many other following aspects. The Committee had 17 members, among them 5 medical doctors, 4 from therapeutic organizations – and the rest health lawyers and social scientists. The report from this Committee, ended up with 5 proposals:
- Start working on a new Law of alternative medicine
- Establishing a registry for alternative medicine – where the main focus should be the patient safety
- Establishing a research/information center
- Prepare four reports on education in acupuncture, homeopathy, osteopathy and naprapathy – where the consideration was linked to future authorization.
The three first proposals were established in 2003/2004. The fourth one was finished at the end of 2004. The consensus was 240 study point for all educations – this means 4 years of full-time education – similar to the education in for example physiotherapy.
I will make a short comment to this. The leadership in NNH tried to influence the committee to also make a report on naturopathic education, without success. I think this was due to that the other organizations had a more defined professional identity, and were more convincing in their lobbying. And I also think, if this had been taken into consideration, the regulatory status would had been different in Norway.
In 2021 both osteopath and naprapath got authorization, after intens lobbing towards the politicians. And as a compensation – or what we in Norway call a horse-trade between some political parties – we lost our VAT-exempt status. And as a compensation to this again, the Norwegian Parliament decided that the Ministry of Health should make an assessment wheather other groups in the Register for alternative medicine could qualify for VAT exemption. It is now 2026, and they are still working on this request from the Norwegian Parliament.
I can here add that the applications for authorization submitted by both the acupuncturists and homeopaths have been rejected.
Our strategy ahead, is to prepare an application for authorization in naturopathy. We know that this will require hard work, and some disappointments along the way. We believe this is the only way to restore favourable framework conditions, while at the same time increasing the respect of naturopathy in society and encouraging more young people to choose it as a career path.
We also believe that there is currently no political will to revitalize the Register for alternative medicine, including the introduction of defined professional requirements and VAT exemption.
We also hope that through help from WNF and other European member organizations, we will achieve our goal – and that this can be an inspiration for other countries. And the most important in this strategy, would be to establish high standards of education – and where different educational institutions can cooperate and where it would be possible for international student exchange. I hope that the summit in Slovenia in September can move us a bit in this direction.
Finally, I want to comment a bit about research, because this will also be an aspect in an authorization process. Norways National Research Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Tromsø – funded with 16 million Norwegian kroner from the Ministry of Health each year – has made an assessment concerning naturopathy. Their conclusion is:
It is generally difficult to research the potential effects of treatments composed of multiple elements, such as naturopathy and other medical systems.
As of January 2022, our sources contained no summaries of research on the effects of naturopathic treatment at the system level. This means that, according to our criteria, there is no solid scientific evidence to claim that naturopathy as a system is effective.
May be this conclusion would be a task for WNFs Research Committee, because it will affect our efforts to gain recognition.
Thank you for your attention.
John Petter Lindeland
27. august 2026
